For starters, this is really poorly written! Almost sounds like an attorney wrote in an attempt to obfuscate certain details! ( I say that bc I had my attorney look it over! : )
First off THIS IS A TERRIBLE IDEA!
Secondly, how about you break down in as much detail as humanly possible in an understandable manner so that people actually have specifics as to what they are receiving!
How EXACTLY are holders to be paid back? Based on the unwieldy verbiage I believe the intent of this post is to NOT be clear! So How about a clear and concise explanation?
A backing price is agreed upon for redemption.
Suppose I have 100 avax that I originally put in and paid 120 each for. AM I getting ALL of those AVAX back BECAUSE that’s what I bonded?
Or Am I receiving less then 100 because its based on whatever redemption price is?
If want to be 100% FAIR ,and the treasury DIDNT SPEND any of those assets and they are just staked or being held, then I believe for TRUE redemption to occur 100% of ALL the assets you supplied to the platform should be returned to you!
Returning at a much lower backing price means the holders gets the short end of the stick and the platform makes a profit! HARDLY FAIR to ANYONE who HAD faith in DANI and his venture! I think people need to start speaking out and voicing their opinions instead of just blindly listening and ASSUMING that someone else has your moneys best interest in mind!
Also fully in favor of this version of the Quarterly Redemption Option.
This will strengthen Wonderland giving current and future holders more confidence in the protocol.
We will likely need to tweak the 3rd part as our investment portfolio grows and that’s healthy/part of the process. Currently for example a very large part of the portfolio is liquid so I believe most of it should be considered for redemption but as the illiquid part grows this could be reconsidered.
@Kap-One I’m happy to add any details that provide clarity for holders, my intent was not to confuse/obfuscate anything and I have responded to nearly everyone asking questions in the previous RFC and Discord to help provide clarity. A few people have mentioned explaining how much they are giving up versus a 100% full redemption, and perhaps we can add that number in the WIP for Q1 as an estimate at this time (although it will constantly change). It is difficult to give a full redemption given we have locked assets, a portion of BSGG vesting, etc. Perhaps we should also have a discussion about Convex and other assets that are locked if people want something closer to a 100% redemption… Please keep in mind when I was drafting this about half the community wanted either a liquid backing (with no BSGG) or no redemption at all so I’m trying to balance the informal votes of everyone on the forum. Since the majority want something less than a 25% redemption (based on informal votes, roughly 50-55%), its hard to make the argument that we should implement a 100% full backing redemption–although this was heavily discussed at the 11th hour of drafting.
I agree we should return to the rebase model, with A LOT LOWER APY, so much lower that can be sustainable and deflationary with regular burns. We do not need redemption if the project is heathy!
OHM still gets revenue from bonds! We can do!
I was always under the impression that the backing price meant something. This proposal allows wonderland holders to access their share of the treasury.
@rexfire & @Kap-One, please try to remain on topic and provide valid arguments on why redemptions are not a good idea to help the community make a proper decision and stay away from spreading FUD.
I think this is a good suggestion. Adding a fact does not change the WIP, it just informs those contemplating redemption.
When the estimated redemption price is figured out and presented, it should also state the “NON-redemption” token value, and what percentage of your token value you are leaving with the treasury if you choose to redeem.
@ghostzero I will add as soon as I hear back from SkyH prior to the Snapshot vote. I’m looking to provide as much clarity as possible so voters can make an informed decision.
@Deal as I said in the RFC, the price of wMemo has to be an oracle backing price for the redeeming phase not a fix price.
It’s understandable that it will be hard to build an oracle for constantly monitored the price so I’ve come up with a new idea:
Quarterly a redemption UI I’ll be available in the dapp, showing the at-time backing price. It’ll give an idea of the baking price. The redeemable backing price will be calculated after the deposit time window described below.
User have 72 hour to deposit their wMemo in it. During this period the funds can be withdrawn.
At the end of the 3day time the tokens in the contract will be locked.
In the next 2 days the TM will calculate the backing price and move/sell the treasury in order to reach the right liquidity.
When it’s ready the TM will airdrop the redeemed liquidity to the depositors’ address
This will stop profiteers and arbitrators from asking to redeem and that don’t redeem at all. If you commit you will sell you wMemo. No whitelist. No need to reallocate unredeemed treasury
I’ll vote no, just for this. But the proposal it’s a really good proposal, thank you
It is hard not to have a bad taste in my mouth after the last redemption. It really felt like those who were loyal and toughed things out were taken advantage of. In spite of that, I thought that redemption was a good thing to do at that time. It would have been nice to know clearly that there was no penalty to participate in a redemption and no reward for loyalty. I was able to learn there is no reward for loyalty or integrity here, or anywhere else, in crypto. I have since changed my stance from “no more redemptions ever” to “as many redemptions as possible.”
Time holder since the drop in January. And obviously at a loss for the moment.
I joined Wonderland because I liked Dani’s vision, the APR and the rebase model.
Yes, the scandals and the market have had a terrible impact on the Time price. But I am a little puzzled by the constant “Redemption” proposals.
The job of team Wonderland should be to make money for Wonderland.
Dani is always saying "40 million a year in year one.”
Can you keep it up for 1 year at least? Same APR? More stable token pricing ( and not from 10k to 49)? Because at the end, this and the name of Dani brought the investors.
What do I care about redemption when I am at 50% loss and 5 months invested in this project. I got in to make a profit not “to rage quit” whatever little-bitch terminology that is…
Everybody should DYOR before investing. If you give in to the fud and can’t take the market crush, shouldn’t invest.
This has turned into a rant and mods should feel free to move it to another subforum if they see fit.
But what I’m trying to say to the team is, please focus on making money for Wonderland so all investors can profit based on the original model. If that is the idea of course. If this is a slow rug then let it be done and kudos to you for making us believe.
As a investor in Time, my personal interest is having a stabilized price. While I do understand, there are swings. I want Time to stabilize around $50. Do I want Time to go up? Sure but having a stabilized price is as important.
( I say that bc I had my attorney look it over! : )